JohnBhoy posted this as a comment on an earlier thread. I thought it worth a “guest post” slot.

Thanks JohnBhoy!

—————————————————–

The old Rangers understood the theory of balance. If all competing influences have parity – similar club size, domestic fan base, financial clout etc. – then this could present the dangerously unpredictable fiasco of a level playing field, leading to ludicrously unfair equal competition between two city rivals, namely Celtic and Rangers. Thankfully, EBTs came to the rescue and redressed the balance in Rangers’ favour. That is the kind of equilibrium that appealed to the old Rangers. For every fiver that you pay in tax, we’ll pay ten less.

The new Rangers likes balance too, in a variety of contexts: financial balance (no debt, courtesy of unpaid creditors), football balance (leapfrogging The Spartans FC to gain entry to the SFL without the need to follow the same rigorous, competitive application process), social balance (march on Hampden, boycott etc.) and msm balance (James Traynor, writing for The Daily Record while seeking, and finally securing, employment with Rangers).

Chris Graham wants to maintain that traditional sense of balance (http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/225-bbc-scotland-can-t-strike-rangers-balance). He refused to take part in BBC Radio Scotland’s Sportsound because he concluded that the make up of the guest panel was not balanced enough in his direction. Below is the disreputable list of unhinged reprobates – with the exception of only one upstanding citizen – the BBC had the temerity to invite without first seeking Chris Graham’s approval [in fact, the BBC did attempt to barter with Chris Graham on the composition of the panel but, alas, to no avail]:

What were the objections put forward by Ibrox’s poster boy? Paul McConville is an intelligent, articulate, fair individual, one who bases his position on available evidence and legal precedent. He had to go. Andy Muirhead self-evidently failed to uphold the same uncritical pro-Rangers faculties as Chris Graham – the very idea that there should be two bloggers with different views on the same programme was hilariously at odds with the theory of balance as practiced by Rangers, old and new. Andy Muirhead had to go.

Chris Graham had no obvious objection to Chris Graham appearing on the panel. He saw a lot of himself in Chris Graham. They could have been twins. The face that stared blankly back at him in the mirror was not made for asking difficult questions. He had to stay.

The two journalists and the broadcaster? Despite a slow start to non-succulent lamb reporting, endemic in Scotland, they came good in the end and dispatched their duties with integrity. Without question, adherence to their job description wholly undermined their credibility: they too had to go. Furthermore, Stuart Cosgrove was not friendly enough with Rangers – “not a friend of the club” – while Graham Spiers and Jim Spence both committed the cardinal sin of recently referring to the new club The Rangers as… a new club.

As further evidence of the BBC’s bias against The Rangers, Chris Graham bemoaned the minor legal technicality of the The Communications Act 2003, whereby fans of his club are required to pay their license fee like everyone else, otherwise they would retaliate with a boycott of the BBC: “We have no real option but to pay our licence fee and fund them… [so] boycotting them does not hit them in the pocket.” They do like to hit people where it hurts and it is exasperating, not to mention grossly unfair, when that opportunity is foiled by the laws of the land.

Free speech is not an optional extra for a balanced media – it is an absolute necessity. Allowing a football club’s fans to place conditions on free speech, or to curtail it altogether, is the antithesis of democracy. It was John Diefenbaker, former lawyer and Prime Minister of Canada, who said that “freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong.” The BBC was guilty of the latter by denying others the chance of the former. That error of judgement needs to be corrected. The alternative is a return to craven succulent lamb “reporting”, where balance meant turning a blind eye to debate and submitting copy to one club for approval.

A Rangers Hater is anyone outwith the core geography of your quantum. In other words, the term is so elastic as to be meaningless. Yet, if we but pause and reflect for a moment on the opposite of Rangers Hater – for all sociological phenomena possess a converse relationship – then we may find, by applying reverse logic, that our path to enlightenment is all the sweeter.

Rangers Hater does suggest that there is such a thing as a Rangers Lover. A lover requires both a recipient (something to be loved) and a sweetheart (a love donor i.e. someone to give love), although the relationship can also be reciprocal, but then we would be analysing the term Rangers Lovers, which we are not.

It is at this stage that we run into a dilemma and stray unwittingly into the judgemental field of social mores. The recipient in Rangers Lover, i.e. Rangers, is clearly a corpse which, in turn, makes any lover of Rangers a necrophiliac. By definition, a Rangers Hater has a higher social standing than a Rangers Lover, unless you are a zombie.

Nah…we’ll leave it to the Tic boys to get up to the unnatural sexual practices.
A bit of freshness in the lurve stakes keeps the poker firm. Hanging around with the same old nag could lead to inbreeding.

I fear you are becoming a hater-denier – trying to diminish the numbers, the influence and sheer hateyness of the haters.

But then maybe we need a new term for super-haters because 6,500,000,000 are in danger of becoming simple haters at any time – without even noticing. And even the 500,000,000 must be careful to tread a fine theological line each day lest they become the worst possible kind of hater – heretic hater..

Twat.What a twisted, bitter wee man you are.Glad we all voted to keep you and yours out of the SPL and the other divisions.We dont want you or need you and.Div 3 is 2 good for you and i pray that LNS throws you lot out of scottish football for good .Justice and rules dictates you should not even be in Div 3 so suck it up,bow your head and show some humility you TWAT

Nag comes from the Dutch old horse,” c.1400, nagge “small riding horse,” – studies prove inbreeding increases the risk of genetic defects being passed on and most animal breeders avoid this. European Royal bloodlines on the other hand saw no harm with inbreeding and it was the norm rather than the exception. Unnatural sexual practice in animals is unknown to the animals themselves and in human society the term is subjective. Royal bloodlines are well documented and many families have records or ill health etc. though nobody has published /conducted genetic defect research as far as i am aware.

Coyler you have the freedom to mention your view. In regards to making the capital letters bigger may I suggest: purchase 2 packets of crayons and ask you butcher for some paper. After you have required the said articles,write your complaint down in big letters. Better put an apron on incase you get all messy now and don`t forget to spell check .Now go sit outside the BBC till your heart’s content

Much ado about nothing.
The Beeb wanted to do a programme,contacted some folk with relevancy to the subject, got a knock back off a guy who didn’t want to walk into an ambush and for their own reasons didn’t run the programme.
Cue mock outrage,long winded speeches about attacks on democracy,self righteous bombast and a wee quote to add gravitas.
I was in the vicinity of Pacific Quay at the time and apart from hordes of knuckle dragging, mutated herrenvolk rampaging and pillaging outside didn’t notice any attacks on democracy,funny that.
Ok,next.

You were the one who brought Chris Graham’s article to everyone’s attention and urged a response from Paul (see below). Now it’s “much ado about nothing”. So, you expected Paul to write a post about nothing?

It’s odd that opinion that runs contrary to yours is labeled artificial and without credibility. Many of The Rangers brethren also saw it differently from you, as evidenced in their online posts. For them it was hailed as a victory, not an inconsequential storm in a teacup. You saw it as worthy of a response – not “much ado about nothing” as now claimed – and I agree.

Ignoring proof of your obvious educational deficiencies, I’ll highlight your lack of sensory perception: you did not notice an attack on democracy? Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. A programme is cancelled because of a combination of bullying and cowardice and this does not undermine free speech, ergo democracy? Your evidence to support the opposite thesis? Some immature rambling about not witnessing a physical attack on a building.

Your response proves the central theme of my post. That the norm for fans of The Rangers is a return to favouritism, perfectly encapsulated in the phrase “we are the peepul”. Any criticism of that world view, or tactics employed to achieve it, will be deemed “much ado about nothing”.

cam
February 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm
… a response to Mr Grahams rather blunt retort to the Empty chair at Pacific Quay last week.
Take it away,Paul.

It is your post that is “much ado,,,”
I was urging Paul to get into a scrap with Chris like a big wean shouting “fight” at school.
I realise that this hate filled behaviour is immature and irresponsible and have berated myself and threw the last slice of Bakewell tart out the window for the doos as punishment.
I love Bakewell tart more than the Gers and if you ever do one of your long rambling posts attacking the role of Mr Kipling and his French Fancies then that will be treated as an act of war.
Can you explain the mechanics of how one bullies a broadcaster?
And do you like custard creams?

” And fur your information smarty pants ah goat 6 o levels and 3 highers at skool and they wur aw B and A passes so ah know a thing or two aboot talking shite.”

So in Scotland you have advanced level exams in ‘talking shite’ and you got 2 As and a B. Well done little Cam. I’d never have guessed.
Perhaps now would be a suitable time to introduce Civic Responsibility as a subject, modules to include:

Paying one’s taxes. (Case study – Rangers)
The evils of sectarianism. (Ditto)
How not to behave when visiting other countries. (You guessed it.)
How to shed ones hate, rage and bitterness and listen to the helpful advice offered by your friendly neighbour.

@JB
Although I disagree with a number of Cam’s points I welcome them on this forum to provide a counter balance. I personally want more pro Rangers perspectives on this blog so that they can at least be completely shot down in flames en masse. To that end I do not believe attacking his intelligence is called for although he might indeed be a knuckle dragger…

Yes, but in fairness Cam does not appear to fit wholly into that category (although I do not want to defend anybody else and I have not read all posts so might be wrong). My main issue was that I thought the comment regarding Cam’s intelligence was uncalled for especially with the backdrop of a minority voice swimming in a sea of sharks.

Nail firmly on the head! Graham is a coward, without the protection of his blogg where he can control the content and the agenda he is found out for what he is. He has no interst in open debate. His spiteful article in the RS was testament to that.

@ @Clarkeng et al
I agree that the points raised by JohnBhoy are worthy of further attention.
I would hope to gather some lucid retort from an opposite perspective to the specific points raised; Clarkeng; you are particularly welcome to provide further input.

——————————————————————————
Raymilland
February 21, 2013 at 6:21 pm
@Clarkeng
Please excuse me for butting in.
In your response to JohnBhoy, it appears that you pass the buck to the BBC for the fiasco as described. You also reserve the right to disagree with his stated opinion (fair enough), however, you deflect stout evidence of his argument in a broad swipe, simply because you put the entire matter down to mischief making.
You would do yourself justice if that you could be specific and identify the so called makers of mischief and in which context to your argument?
You avoid response to the other issues raised; particularly the entire EBT romp; is that to be written off as mischief?
Use your freedom of speech by all means; although here’s the proviso; back up your argument by addressing the issues.
——————————————————————————

Clarkeng
February 21, 2013 at 5:26 pm
@JohnBhoy
Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses – even mine.
The fact that I disagree with you or vice versa is neither here nor there.
But …….and herein lies the proviso…….. that assumes that your opinion is based on facts or evidence and is not spurious mischief making based on wishful thinking, hatred or anything else.
I know it is hard to contemplate sometimes on here but we are all adults and in all probability would not dream of saying the type of things frequently posted on here to someones face.
At least I hope not otherwise there would be some right sore faces going about.
Let the BBC answer for themselves.
Regardless of the excuses given on the subject to date they have to stand up and take responsibility for their actions and that includes even considering broadcasting things which might offend some sections of society.
Every person who pays their licence fee in this country is entitled to object if they feel that the BBC are not acting in an independant manner as all broadcasters and media should.
If it had been on the other foot I am certain you would have heard the screams from your side as well.
—————————————————————————————————-

@Raymilland
I have just been posting some responses on previous blogs only to be advised they were held for moderation so sorry without the right of free speech I will not respond at this time.
Seems to me that any detracting opinions from those expressed by the great unwashed are considered unwelcome and I have to say that the content of my posts is infinitely less offensive than the vast majority of posts on here.
Perhaps you all want to be left to yourselves to inbreed your hatred of all things which disagree with your opinions.
Who knows.
Do you?

I am surprised to learn of your censorship: I would appeal to Paul to allow your ‘withheld’ posts (obviously the offensive sections should be over lined, although I am interested as to that particular content also).

In the interest of freedom of speech; I would hope that you would continue to post in the future; it would benefit the debate if that you could be more specific as to all matters of which you take exception to; by providing reasoned retort.

Did you read it all with rage in your heart Jamie?
Why didn’t the Beeb just do the programme,announce that all the Gers minded invitees “walked away” and give Paul,Stu,Andy,et al a clear run?
I would have cancelled my macrame class to listen in,and would have taped it so i could use it as a sleeping aid.

Dinnae fret Jamie,your champion is penning a reply to Mr Grahams barbed retort as we clatter.
Keep the rage on a low simmer Jamie and don’t get too upset at the Juve 2nd leg,,,it is just natural selection,survival of the fittest,strongest and best wrestlers.Jeez we all thought that Broony was a bit of a ticket as well.
It is horrible seeing your illusions being shattered,eh?

Whats to fret about Cam, last 16 CL lots of kudos and experience for the young players. Your right about the natural selection part, that’s why your in the backwoods waiting to die. Looking forward to the 2nd leg actually it’s been a big learning curve…..I forget, who are you playing in Europe?

We’ll have another bash next season while your lot have another go at the Ramsdens…natural selection indeed:)

Well, seeing you’re so interested, Berwick Rangers (yes Berwick is in Europe) and it’s going to be big occasion.

“There will be a disco/karaoke upstairs in the newly refurbished Corporate Lounge at Shielfield Park after the match versus Rangers on Saturday 23rd February, starting at approximately 4.30 pm, for all Supporters’ Club or Trust members.”

So we will sing all our traditional songs without any complaints from spoilsports and have nostalgic memories of January 1967. Eat your hearts out.

It is a bit reminiscent of Kenny Dalglish taking the huff with the press and holding press conferences in Bairds bar.
Maybe Chris didn’t fancy a pint in the Beebs 21st century version.
Who knows, maybe he didn’t want to be associated with a fitba casual?
C’mon Auntie reschedule the program and invite Philadelphia Phil on for some balance.
Poor guy is craving some credibility.

Ok Freco,thats me reached my agreed targets for this morning.My paymasters have sent a cheque for this months waffling, and all winding up orders have been cancelled.
If you’re a total daftie,you will bite.
BTW old boy,,,i see Mr Murray may well be staying on at the Gers for a wee while yet.I’m sure your twisted wee mind will have something to say about that,,,IMHO.

No takers so far? Be honest with your selves; the question of balance is key to any debate. Impartiality might be too much to ask of some, you should at least recognise that when you avoid direct question of the issue; you have lost credibility.

Succinct, clear, precise, unfortunately well thought out argument and evidence is not considered in anyway relevant by the nice chappies who support that new wee team.Oh and the ones who support the dead one!.

Cam makes a great point that Mr Graham didn’t want to walk voluntarily into an ambush. I think we can all agree that that is precisely what would have happened one way or another. Remember the BNP on Question Time!

I have no problem with the debate being shelved. I even have sympathy for the Rangers fans who are fighting an enemy that most of the rest of us can’t even see. It is not our club that is under threat here. The bloggers, their commenters, and the journalists may be fighting the good battle of free speech and morality in public (football) life but the ‘bears’ are simply fighting for their club even if we can’t agree on what that is. They are cornered, wounded (perhaps fatally) and probably terrified. Now may not be the best time to offer them a little respite in the company of those who think this might be a good time to discuss general large carnivore behaviour and the negative impact it has on other animals and humans settlements.

It is especially questionable to offer a platform to a slightly different but equally destructive bear species (lets call them Bhoy-Bears shall we) to pontificate on the situation. From the bears point of view, it is just another attack perpetrated by an opportunistic rival – even if the actual words are written very well and make good sense to non-bears.

Mr. Graham may be an odious cretin as may be many of the people who write on his blog. But he is simply reacting to the world as he sees it. True football fans are often passionate and irrational about their own team. Why are we surprised when that passion and irrationality is taken to ridiculous heights when our clubs are in ridiculous situations. Be it Celtic winning against Barcelona or Rangers going bust, or even Dundee winning a football match. Have some sympathy, I say, or at least understand why your intentions might not be as well received as you intended them to be.

Nah,Andy no respite.No quarter asked for and none shall be given.
Keep firing away and if you wish to compare Mr Graham,the “odious cretin” with the BNP, and by doing so it squeezes more pus from your long festering wound, then sqeeze away sir.
Don’t get all mealy mouthed,spit it out son.

You rip the p**h oot yerselfs cammie,everyday at work,on the bus in the pub everywhere you open your gob about your team all i see is hurting wee men clinging onto a distant memory. Your teams deid Cam roll over son. Your grandweans will be celtic supporters lol.
HH

And what do you think would have happened. A reasoned, calm and well balanced discussion. I doubt it. Mr. Graham would, in the first few seconds, have levelled accusations against everyone along the lines of Rangers haters or bigots and the others would have challenged him en masse. There would then have ensued an embarrassing rabble of entertaining nonsense with claim and exasperated counter-claim. The discussion, if that is what it would have been called, would probably have been cut short and everyone would have gone home even more certain in their views than they were before they went in. Mr. Graham even more certain, if that is possible in his view that the BBC and everyone else hates Rangers. And he would certainly have called it an ambush or worse.

@Andy
Just on the question of balance – was the last CL result no Sellik getting pumped by the big foulers of Juve.
The subject of a soon to be released movie showing bestiality and male to male inappropriate contact.
The only question of balance anybody should be referring to on here is tha album by the Moody Blues.
The rest of it is what happens on a Green Day…………everyday.

Why would there be an ambush? Graham is a non-entity who writes bloggs for his target audience. He has become the acceptable face of the FF brigade because of his ability to string a sentence together. He is not interested in balance or fair play.

Look at any of the pieces he writes, full of spite and personal attacks on anyone who dares write a bad word or criticise his club. Surely, if you have the courage to match your convictions and believe in what you write you’d want to challenge those who had opposing views.

As for Nick Griffin on Question Time, he might be a fudd! but at least he had the balls to fight his corner. Graham took the cowards way out.

Maggie
Correct me if i am wrong, is this the definition of a flap? Black or otherwise? And is it in a strange way relevant here?
A piece of something thin, such as cloth, paper, or metal, hinged or attached only on one side, that covers an opening or hangs down…
The black necked warbler more like.

Maggie
A good point there, I use my real name and have in fact given enough away on here to be recognised by some people.
I have no reason to hide behind aliases as I am never abusive or ashamed of my opinions.
Some others could perhaps try a little honesty.

Please see below for LNS’ take on the test for apparent bias, as he sets out in his opinion commonly known as the SPLIC ground rules dated 12/09/2012 :
“The test for establishing apparent bias is authoritatively laid down in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, in which Lord Hope of Craighead said at paragraph 143:
“The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.”
To this may be added that the “fair-minded and informed observer” is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious”: Johnson v Johnson(2000) 201 CLR 488, paragraph 53.”
I now suggest each reader forms an opinion on each member of the proposed BBC RS panel to appear on the show, as set out by the above definition. I note it’s a test for ‘bias’, not balance, but the principles will be very similar.

This post has now been decimated and is no longer fit for purpose.
By cunning use of reverse psychology,the double bluff and the threat of me talking even more crap i propose we now move on to a more balanced subject.
I want to bring up the topic of Davie Provan’s perm.That was a disgrace and much much worserer than big DJ’S

Jeez,i feel like George Kennedy pummeling Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke!,,,,just stay down bhoys, it is becoming embarassing.
Keep swallowing the boiled eggs,keep shaking it and as Strother Martin said.
“what we have here,is a failure to communicate”

Hi Gerry,i’m stone cold sober mate but i’m on high on rocket powered hate fuel.
I’m going for a wee kip soon but i’ll talk some more crap to you later.
What about that ginger perm of Ian Wallace?,,,now that was worse than Jim Spences current look.

Cam
You and Adam have the same modus operandi, talk about anything other than the facts being presented.
Hoping this will divert others to respond to you nonsense and away from the debate.
At least you are amusing sometimes.
Away to bawbaws in your union flag onesie. you will need your strength in the coming months.

The real reason Mr Graham wet himself was this. He knows that 99% of Rangers fans have been unquestioning oafs during this whole episode and have regurgitated endlessly exactly what their masters have programmed them to do. Heads in the sand they have trotted out the same nonsense time and time again. Hard questions have been very noticeable by their absence.

Being on a panel where clever people speak is not somewhere you would want to be when trying to defend the indefensible. Had the debate been on Radio Clyde he would have been up against the intellectual might of chaps like Dalziel, Johnstone etc… Even the clever ones here like Keevins and Guidi know how the game is played and never ask a tough questions and intentionally miss open goals when the opportunity arises to call them out on something they have said.

However Mr Cosgrove along with Mr Spence have been excellent during this whole episode at not letting absurd statements go unanswered. Spiers is about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit with the Rangers fans as he too has, on occasion, broke away from the Ibrox hymn book and has used straight facts rather than the nonsense that the legions want to hear. Tell the truth down Govan way and you risk being called some rather nasty names. I don’t think that Mr Speirs would like to walk into an Ibrox pub on match day on his own.

I think Graham really bottled it though when he realised that he would be up against Paul. Having a sharp legal brain and a track record of knowing the tiny details of the story made this a battle he knew he could not win. He might have been able to turn the debate into a simple slagging match with Cosgrove or Spiers but he will have known that as a lawyer Paul would not have been so easily sidetracked. Bring real facts into it and he knows his side of the story just doesn’t stand up. At all.

Roll on some pant wetting and then the well rehearsed bullying accusations, “they’re all out to get us” blah, blah, blah. The amazing thing is that yet again it worked! The Rangers faithful railed against the ‘bias’ in the BBC and in their eyes it actually strengthened their argument!

How on earth do you educate people who just don’t want to know? In a few years from now some clever university types will analyse this whole episode in great detail. I’m sure that students of psychology degrees in years to come will be very familiar with what is happening to the minds of our friends in blue at this moment.

Jeez,i’m on a thumbfest rampage,,,it is brilliant to watch the hate filled thumbing,Thumbologists can study the methodology of thumbing and by pattern analysis of which digit actually applies the thumb can measure the level of hate on ,,,,well the Hateometer!
I can’t stop laughing at you folk and want to thank you for all the fun you give me.

Nah.it is ok Carl,its just a wee game and it at least got the Celtic fans taking their thumbs out their gubs.
We’ll be ok.It will take a while but the crying game will come back around soon enough,so keep your thumb on sooking standby.

Here,,,what about the bold Galloway storming out of a debate when he found out he was talking to an Israeli chap?
If this is true, then i would assume the well balanced hate-haters would hate to see this kind of hateful conduct which is unbecoming of an elected MP.

He at least got further than Graham did and turned up before hightailing it out of Dodge…Graham shoulda done that…excuse me Cosgrove, Speirsy, McConville, Spencey Muirhead…did yous say “We arra new club” “Aye we did”…..are you all tims and Rangers haters? ….”Naw we’re just saying newco = new club” erm I don’t recognise the BBC I was misinformed I thought I was having a love in with Leggo & wee Bill…I’m off.

I have many friends and aquaintances who are supporters of The Rangers, I don’t hate them, however I do hate the behaviour of the Ibrox brand over their ‘so-called’ one hundred and forty-year existence.

Their WATP mantra, their long-standing sectarian philosophy, their tacit support of bigotry and, over the last twenty years, their cheating and treatment of people and organisations to whom they owe legitimate debts, their ‘place men’ in the Scottish media and their explicit threats to people who do not share their views.

With regard to my earlier post in respect to my proposal to a wager involving title deeds of landed estate;

I have just received a phone call from a mister Paul Baxendale-Walker……………..now keep this on the QT…………….he assures me if that my speculation of the forthcoming champions league tie goes belly up; I would be wise to take steps to cover my tush….he cleverly suggests that I immediately contact the land registrar and alter my moniker to The Raymilland.

@Ray
What it must be like to still have dreams?
But at your age should you no be past wet wans?
You just buy yer hoose back wi the winnings on the tainted title.
Easy.
Always look on the bright side of life!!
Think I might have a wee pound on Juve though.
What do you think?
Will I get a good price?
I was thinking 4-0 to the Old Lady surely that would make more sense.
Or do you have more money than that?

Ok can’t think of anything to lend to the current debate, so a little off topic.. Hope that’s allowed..It is Friday..

Has Chico met his match in the financial muscle who have invested in the company. Chico must be spitting feathers after his ‘Murray or me’ statement earlier in the week only to be told to shut up and sort out the situation… I look forward to this relationship bubbling beneath the surface and how Jabba shows it as actually a Bromance and all that was said this week never really happened, we all just dreamt it up.

Also looking forward to finding out what murray actually did…I am sure I spotted him and Lawell dining on caflik steak last friday in London with a bottle of chateauneuf du pape musing over a celtic view and the Daily Rhebel.

I reckon old sticklebricks has found the medication he lost a few months back and is reaching some stability. His usual excessive vitriol was certainly missing today..

Chico got the cheque book out also cost the great man over £1m this week on playing matters without adding anything to the current playing squad, tough week for the money motivated maverick…

@JimBhoy
You’ve got to feel sorry for Malcolm Murray and the whispering
campaign against him from Ibrox.I thought the phrase “personal
conduct” was a totally reprehensible one to use as it could be taken
mean anything,though I suspect that’s what was intended.
Trouble at t’mill,Jim.

Tell me. How do YOU know there is a whispering campaign? You don’t.
This is the problem with majority of posts here. Biased agenda. Hate filled conjectures :
share issue would fail – it didn’t
Rangers don’t have enough monies to see out season – bollocks
New winding up order – rubbish

That’s the biased agenda right there Pauly. Or just 3 examples of such which have been posited by you recently.

Hold on there a minute says he I bought shares in Rangers, A club valued at over 100 million I was told! So what’s happened since I was locked up? Go ask Charles Green I tell him!

Hey Mr Green when did you buy Rangers? Em Last June son!

Ah right well Why did big David sell it to you? Em He didn’t Son Duff and Phelps sold me it!

WHAT? Well who are they? Well they are administrators, Rangers were in administration and I bought them!

FA FA FA WHAT? Are we okay now? Yeah Son we have no debt and over 20 million in the bank!

Thank Frank. So you saved us from being liquidated then, glory be to Gazza. Em Well not really Son, ya see Rangers are still getting liquidated!

But you just said you saved them! Yes I did Son I saved them.

Okay I don’t get this but as long as my Rangers are still playing I don’t care! Anyway A friend of mine I met in Her Maj..A friend of mine wants to buy some shares! No problem Son he has come to the right place let him get is money in and we well sell him all the shares he wants in Rangers! That’s great I’ll let him know as soon as I see him. I was thinking of selling some of my shares in Rangers I bought about 5 years ago! How do I go about that?

Well that would be the old Rangers, Nothing to do with me. But I thought it was the same Rangers? Yes it is Son when I’m selling you something! when you have debt to collect then we send you to the old Rangers, Nothing to do with us!

Cam, you say that the radio debate would have been an “ambush”. I have not looked at the OED, but I would describe an ambush as a surprise attack, from an unknown force, from a concealed position. Chris Graham was informed of the time, place, opposition strengths, and positions. Hardly an ambush!
Chris Graham never appeared, not because of this so called “ambush” but through lack of weaponry to fight through this “ambush” or repel any attack. The weaponry in this case being truth, and fact.
Unlike modern conflicts weaponry constantly evolves and improves, and can be a deciding factor in any confrontation, the weaponry in this case (despite the attempts at Ibrokes HQ) will not!
Chris Graham did not cleverly thwart an “ambush”. He merely looked acr no man’s land at the rows of tanks, machine guns, and rocket launchersealising he only had a catapault, so gecided to Leggo it!
On his return to his expectant troops, rather than admit his cowardice, he informed them that he flicked them the “V” and they should dig in for a long winter, and continue the siege.
Like all sieges though, it will end in tears. There are no cavalry coming riding in to the rescue, with extra weaponry and munitions. Soon, he will be out of provisions, and the thirsty, starving troops will turn and mutiny. Some will surrender, ..Some already have…..The fanatics will turn on each other, and isolate, then feast on the carcases of the weak. Which reminds me…How is Malcolm Murray?

I note a certain Ol’ Yeller keeps making reference to the second leg v Juve. One wonders if Yeller remembers this wonderful headline from the DR (well they do have their moments) on the occasion of Oldco’s last tussle with Juve in the CL: ‘Tallies 8 Wallies1’ . I’m sure we can avoid such an abject humiliation.

And a further interesting point arises from this, towit, even after that mother and father of all humpings, it was still possible for Oldco to progress beyond the group stages. Surely food for thought for those who argue that the old European Cup was easier to win—–a competition where a mere 1-0 defeat over two legs was enough to put a team out.

I have tried in my heart of hearts to take a similar conciliatory approach to yours. I have long considered how I would feel if Celtic were going through a similar obliteration. I would want to hold on for dear life to all that is dear to me at the club and to enter the surreal realms of self denial to keep me somewhat sane. I would most certainly not accept that my “club” was dead for it lives for ever in my heart and, I presume, in the hearts of all who support it. Any confusion and mishmash surrounding the football club, liquidation, ownership etc., etc., would not change my personal belief that my club still exists, though perhaps in a different form from that historical entity in the record books. Like it or, as we are regularly asked, lump it, a football club never dies in the minds and hearts of supporters as long as there is something, even a memory, of it kicking a ball in its name. In fact, a football club is probably more those minds and hearts than the team or the ownership. I, therefore, have long sought to have sympathy for The Rangers supporters who hold to this belief because I see in much of their attitudes the pain and denial that I know I too would have in similar circumstances, if I am being truly honest with myself.

However, I am swiftly rethinking my attitude not least because of some posts on this site. I can not express enough how much I enjoy reading the articles and comments here and not just the football ones. One of the main attractions is the diversity of opinion, not always tolerated on the sites of some other internet bampots. I do not comment regularly as I simply can not keep up with the pace of retort displayed by all on here. I am no nerd or whiz-kid, that is for certain. For the most part, therefore, I sit back and enjoy the performances, a bit like an envious spectator who resigns himself to watching when he sorely wants to be playing. However, I have commented on at least a few occasions about the tone and attitude of some contributors from all sides of the spectrum. In doing so I have always tried to respect the right of each one to have his/her say. I have condemned the “mud slinging” but supported the “banter”. I have even slipped in my own odd “unfunny” quip now and then. I have always, though, tried to show restraint and respect. There are some fans of other clubs and of The Rangers who participate in the discussions, debates and sometimes the arguments. I strongly disagree with and often have little sympathy for most but continue to respect their points of view. I have to admit that these are almost entirely followers of The Rangers and I feel as I do because on the whole the arguments put forward are those of stubborn protagonists who being bloodied and defeated refuse to see the benefits of recognising their past situation and seeking reconciliation. I am sometimes reminded of the Bushido ethic or the kamikaze madness. It is worth remembering that, in spite of their seemingly admirable ideals, neither led to an honourable outcome in WWII but simply increased the already horrific bloodshed. Is this the path that The Rangers supporters are heading down just to “make a stand”? Are they content to weaken Scottish football? Is the sporting bloodshed of no concern to them? Or is it, as many of their opponents claim, a mere blindness on their part to the reality? Or are we to imagine far more sinister reasons for their behaviour? The absence of open and logical discussion leaves conjecture as the only option. Whatever the reason, they do continue to antagonise even those who would wish to see them on side.

A prime example are some commenters of that persuasion on this site. At one time I was, dare I say it, a bit of a fan of some of them. I empathised with the pain that their rather twisted humour concealed. I was sorry for rather than scathing of their inability to see the truth. I interpreted their antagonism as a mere shield from the hurt and a natural reaction to the constant bad news. On occasion I even participated in a little banter with them. However, in recent posts I have detected a real anger, bitterness and almost malevolent attitude. There has been a tendency to intertwine “humour” with almost depraved insults, insinuations and contempt that is unbecoming of genuine debate. What purpose is served by unfounded references to some historical sexual investigations? What chance is there of understanding or appeasement when faced with an attitude such as this “No quarter asked for and none shall be given” Cam. I fail to understand how one can react sensibly to someone with such a mentality. It would appear that the only response they can conjure up is some unfounded, obnoxious remark about someone or something fictitious. The humour is no longer funny but base. When “banter” reaches that depth of ignorance and insult it is no longer to be laughed at. It is degrading in the extreme. So, to those that recognise themselves and to all who participate in deflective abuse and wish to carry on as you do, then I will treat you with the contempt you seem to seek. I can accept genuine ignorance. I can understand denial. I can tolerate stubbornness. I will not, however, be party to covert hatred.

@Pensionerbhoy
I couldn’t agree more,unfortunately you will be classed as another
hater.I too was empathetic towards their situation and enjoyed the
banter,but as you say the banter quickly became base.
It was like one’s non Presbyterian granny would say “give them
an inch and they’ll take a mile.” I simply stopped giving the inch.

You know PB as I typed that last phrase,I was conscious that it might
be construed in some lewdly inappropriate manner as has happened
in the past,another reason I stopped responding.

I’m aware that I’ll be accused of being the one harbouring the
inappropriate thoughts for mentioning it,I could almost write it for
them,however,as a woman these are the things you have to be
aware of when you’re in certain unenlightened company, years of experience taught me that lesson.

Onwards and upwards auld yin:-) in our support for Paul and his
wonderful blog.

@Maggie
Noted!
The last time I was on probation I was 16.
I came through it unscathed and will do so again.
My crime?
I was found guilty along with12 others of playing football on a pitch in Lanarkshire and us bad boys were all from Glasgow and considered to be causing a nuisance.
I was given a salutory lesson of £10 fine with time to pay and placed on probation.
Justice?
We wuz framed!!!!!

Oh poor wee Chris. Were the big bhoys going to pick on you. Don`t worry son I`ve got song for you.
Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don’t fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don’t fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin’ breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever, but I ask you please
Don’t fence me in